Jonathan Gabay's brand communications blog » Energy

Gong show for brand Britons.

JJG — Tue, 22 May 2007 21:39:00 +0000

Crucial to every brand owner is the heart and soul of a brand’s meaning. Central to that understanding is a brand’s capacity to reflect the mood and sensibilities of current social trends. Today’s brand values are very different to those of the past. To gain a glimpse of what those principles are, consider who and what ‘citizen UK’ votes as being worthy winners of this year’s ‘Greatest Briton’ awards.

With notable exceptions such as Adventurer Sir Ranulph Fiennes, the first man to reach both the north and south poles by land, who won in the Sports category and Ricky Gervais who picked up the TV award, many awards were given to the ‘bad boys and girls’ of brand UK, rather than the more established ‘safe’ names. That meant that whilst ‘old school’ Brits such as Elton John settled for token nominations, ‘new school’ Brits such as Amy Winehouse grabbed the headlines.

Making the brand tag-lines
Much-admired guerilla marketing style artist, Banksy, also picked up a gong. Yet true to PR form, unlike his tag, he kept his ID under wraps. Banksy typifies today’s attitudes towards brands: ingenious irreverence, cynism and the consumer’s urge to make individual statements on society rather than bow to rigid hierarchies of the establishment. That’s one reason why the top award of ‘Greatest Briton’ almost went to Robbie Williams rather than the Queen, who only scraped through under 40% of the vote. (Third place went to Maggie Thatcher).

The anguish behind the celebrity face
Investing in rebellious and troubled celebrities pays dividends for today’s ‘street aware’ brands. Kate Moss earnt Top Shop over £3m in profits. The pull of her brand name is promises to offer similar rewards to the hairdressing world.

The best celebrities to endorse a product or service are not necessarily those who are simply rich and powerful. Just as a successful brand name has more depth than a simple logo, so a celebrity also needs a ‘back story’ to his or her own brand name. That’s why Katie Price did so well with her book, ‘Being Jordan’. As the title suggested, it wasn’t about the celebrity called, Jordan, but the person behind the celebrity and her ongoing struggle to balance life in the spot light with life at home. (She was recently awarded mother of the year).

In the past it was often said, “everyone has a book within them”. Today many Brits feel that the potential of a hidden celebrity in their own right lies within themselves. At the same time, they recognise their own human frailties and battles to make it in the world – just like many of the Great Brits featured in the award ceremony. Brands aligning themselves to such ‘Great Brits’ help personify these feelings.

£0 -£80,000,000
One Great Briton winner was the £80 million a year turnover Innocent Drinks started by advertising and management graduates. The company’s story of the possible flying in the face of the improbable is perfect for Brand UK. The company’s only brand perception problem may be if it is seen to have ‘sold out’ its innocence to the big bad corporate guys such as McDonald’s who soon will be stocking their brand. (We will wait and see).

Brit endorsements can go wrong for brands. Remember Jade Goody and her perfume? Even names like Naomi Campbell don’t guarantee instant success – as seen with her perfume range – Naomagic.

Off-the-shelf success
In terms of profits, the greatest Brits for any brand remain the ordinary man and woman astute enough to appreciate the superficial glamour behind the brand whilst recognising the value of a sincere product with depth and understanding of real needs. With the potential for anyone to become someone almost overnight, the old tried and trusted formula for selecting a person who exemplifies the best in Great Britons has been turned on its head. Brands used to spend months trying to figure out whom, in terms of star quality, their brands were most akin to. Nowadays marketers match stars to desirable consumers who ultimately decide who gets their vote and who becomes yesterday’s brand wanna-be left on the shelf.

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Put a little extra brand confidence in your tank and trolley

JJG — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 12:55:00 +0000

This week Tesco published full-page national press advertisements apologising for damages caused by petrol from its pumps contaminated with silicon traced from a batch of unleaded fuel from a storage facility used by one of its suppliers in Essex. This is a brave brand move. What is particularly bold is that Tesco promised to pay for any damage caused by the flawed petrol. To prove damage, motorists need to send the company repair receipts along with details, and ideally proof of purchased of where and when the petrol was bought. A Tesco spokeswoman said if people didn’t have receipts they should call a special advice line and each case would be considered individually.This is a laudable offer, however the brand may end up inundated with bills. Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 motorists can claim for petrol, any repairs and “consequential” costs. A spokesperson from Asda – the second of three supermarkets found to have contaminated petrol said, it had already put into place a compensation scheme days before the Tesco adverts came out. Morrison’s, the third supermarket said they would also refund petrol costs and repairs, adding that anyone who did not have receipts would be “supported”.In the mid term, Tesco’s, Asda’s and Morrison’s’ offers may, in brand terms, turn out costly. The consumer advice service Consumer Direct has already been contacted by over 2,500 motorists. The service advised that that a motorist’s contract was “with themselves and the organisation they bought the fuel from.” If they can prove the fuel was the cause of the fault they could claim for any petrol bought, reasonable car repairs and compensation for consequential losses incurred such as alternative travel arrangements. Meanwhile local radio stations such as London’s LBC, are asking listeners to keep them in touch about any repair bills which are disputed by the chains. That could prolong a brand crisis story from weeks worth of coverage to months.With such wide and far reaching possible disputes arising from claims, the supermarkets’ good Samaritan deeds may come with a hidden nasty brand perception sting in the tail, potentially knocking profits at both pump and checkouts points.Prudence before profitAt best it would be prudent for Tesco, Asda and Morrisons not to compel motorists to pay for their suppliers’ gaffes. At worse the companies mustn’t prolong price increases at the pump. The AA reported that average petrol prices rose from 88.03p before the fuel scare to 88.32p a litre once the news hit the headlines. Diesel prices remained at the pre crisis average level of 91.77p a litre. Vanessa Guyll, Technical Specialist for the AA’s Public Affairs expected petrol prices at stations close to affected supermarket forecourt sites to increase their prices.With a little brand shrewdness Tesco, Asda and Morrisons could turn negative expectations on their head. Firstly Tesco must follow their own principle that “every little helps”, maintaining prices as they were prior to the crisis. Next, it needs to keep to its advertised promise to repair vehicles, without wriggling out of commitments with mountains of caveats and conditions. By following suit, Asda will show that they indeed offer “more for you for less” whilst Morrisons will demonstrate that there are really are “more reasons to shop at Morrisons.”Raspberry FoolsTesco’s decision to publish a public apology came just one day after some of the press alleged that the brand was misleading customers in its half-price fruit and vegetable promotion – hiking the price of products a few days before rolling out a campaign. For example, it was reported that Tesco slashed artificially high prices by 50 per cent. One such example was a 500g punnet of plums costing £1.48 on December 11, doubled in price on December 28 to £2.99 then halved back to £1.48 four days later.Commenting on the alleged price hike, Martin Fisher from the Trading Standards Institute said the chain was “grossly exploiting”. Chipping in, Labour MP Jim Dowd accused the store of “deceiving customers”. Tesco explained the price changes were caused by seasonal fluctuations – such as transport costs. “Any suggestion we ramp up prices in order to cut them again is the purest nonsense.”Whatever happens next, Asda, Morrisons and Tesco need to ensure their future marketing tactics underpin any strategic commitments to offer value for money as well as safe and sound shopping for the road ahead.Jonathan Gabaywww.brandforensics.co.uk

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to:

Just what we need: a climate offering a globally warm feeling all over

JJG — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:10:00 +0000

At the beginning of February 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published the first of three key reports due to come out on the effects of global warming. The influential group of scientists concluded that Global climate change is “very likely” to have a human cause.Ever since I can remember, brands have promised to make people feel snug, safe and sound – with a real sense of belonging. I recall with fondness, TV commercials for the cereal, ‘Ready Brek’ promising to give kids a visible warm glow as they trundled off to school on a clean and clear frosty morning. (How times and environments have changed).As a kid, returning home from school fortified by pockets stuffed with branded chocolates and cans of fizzy drinks, I occasionally paid attention to a news item about some international (we didn’t use the word ‘global’ back then) disaster or another. For sure, people were worried, but somehow their naïve faith in a system of greater powers such as brands and companies made them feel that whilst the world was imperfect, it would all turn out okay in the end. For some that may have meant causing change through communal action and protest. “The puppet on the right shares my beliefs. The puppet on the left is more to my liking. Wait a minute, there’s one guy holding both puppets!” (Bill Hicks)Successive UK governments displaced cliques of union power with the assurance of individual prosperity through growth and assertion of their consumer and individual rights. It was the era of the ‘flexible friend’. Brands like Barclaycard and MasterCard joined Visa, the international electronics payment network. Raising the standard with its slogan ‘Brand ‘choice’, corporations instated consumers as puppet kings and queens of everything they surveyed; from shopping malls to low cost skies.As with any leader initially tightly controlled by a cartel and eventually succumbing to too much autonomy, a price was levied for miss-management of funds. De-marketing methods aimed to slow the frenzy for more goods in less time. Now a power even bigger than governments has called time on credit facilities. Mother Earth simply cannot bear any more.Altering decades of consumer ‘rights’ will be an uphill struggle, potentially giving rise to increased cynicism and a backlash by groups feeling cattle herded into becoming integrated into what could be seen as the equivalent of a globally politically correct, but ultimately bland, brand experience.Yet, on the international political stage some progress is being made. Take the USA. As with encouraging bullying children that they are intrinsically good, getting the Americans to proclaim pride for their more environmentally responsible States is a clever psychological step forward. Meanwhile ominous evidence of filthy, sprawling carbon footprints left by China threatens to take everyone several strides backwards. Taxation by confession No doubt, here in the UK, brand endorsed campaigns will be launched to convince the former ‘anyone can do it if they believe in themselves’ public that they, like a Z-list Celebrity Big Brother contestant, should undergo open displays of penitence for over indulging at the dining table of consumerism. Economists will use taxes to flog the public into environmental guilt driven submission. (Tucking in some handy stealth taxes along the way).‘Rob Peter to pay Paul’ carbon-exchange token gestures will only work if emissions are sufficiently reduced to keep global warming in check – creating a market does not, by itself, lessen emissions. On the other hand, genuine socially driven taxes on corporations could make a difference at board level. Yet heavy-handed taxes on the ordinary man and woman may only lead to a once free-flying, free-parking and free-breathing public getting a touched ‘cheesed-off’.Remorseful small businesses will pass taxes on to the next group down the chain. Inevitably that group will be the least capable to shell out. Perhaps people like construction workers in India, living on little more than €2 a day as they flatten green valleys into grey slabs of environmentally devastating concrete, metal and glass. Many such groups may have faith in the West’s corporate hype of a ‘rights for all through free enterprise for the masses future’, so continue to relentlessly build towers of Babel in the belief of one day reaching a consumer utopia. Driving change As Malcolm Gladwell suggested in his classic book, ‘The Tipping Point’, to instigate sustainable change you must reach key movers within a market. Offering them a genuine sense of individual autonomy, which is mutually beneficial for themselves, their peers and environment. What wont work is a bullying brand or authority coercing a market ‘top-down’ by sheer brute force.Lexus cars have taken a healthy initiative by launching a range of Hybrid models. Yet when I recently inspected the vehicles I discovered that if I wanted to show my concern for our planet, I wouldn’t get much change from €63,000. (Hardly a mass-market incentive). Caressing the mahogany steering wheel of the GS450h model, the salesperson told me that David Cameron, leader of the UK opposition, whose party’s new logo features a environmentally-PC tree, would be picking up a € 83,000 model from the range.For a long time, both consumers and corporations have enjoyed free-market rights. Now it’s time to act on the collective individual right of altruistic choice.If brands, economists and governments act shrewdly, sincerely and responsibly; crediting markets with having commonsense for the common good, what currently bodes as an awful prospect for mankind could in fact become a seed for the good of future generationsAnd that will deliver the ideal climate of change affected by a human cause: one offering a profoundly compassionate sense of global warming that everyone deserves to enjoy and share.

Share on Facebook

Bookmark to: